Some Sunny Perspective
September 3, 2009 • By Cory Einhorn,
Print This Post
Email This Post
It is time to sit back and fully evaluate over-the-top reports in the news a few weeks ago as reported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer on July 29, incredibly suggesting that getting a suntan is now in the same risk category as cigarettes, arsenic and even plutonium.
That’s ridiculous. Cigarettes, arsenic and plutonium all undermine our body’s natural functions. But getting a suntan is different — it is a part of the body’s natural design.
Humans, like the rest of the planet, need sun exposure to survive and thrive. Ignored in much news reporting were the very important nuances that define humanity’s very important relationship with UV light and sunshine. Specifically:
Not one single study exists anywhere in the world implicating tanning in a non-burning fashion as a significant risk factor for permanent skin damage. Indeed, no study has ever been designed with protocol to ask this question.
Melanoma is more common in people who work indoors than in those who work outdoors. The relationship between melanoma and sunlight cannot possibly be clear-cut. If it were a clear-cut relationship, outside workers would have higher incidence than inside workers.
Melanoma most commonly appears on parts of the body that do not receive regular exposure to sunlight. Again, the relationship between melanoma and sunlight is not evident. If it were, melanomas would appear most often on parts of the body that receive the most sunlight.
The sum of data do not substantively link indoor tanning equipment with an increased risk of melanoma. Indeed according to the IARC, 18 of 22 epidemiological studies ever conducted on this topic show no significant association. This confounding information was conspicuously absent in what was spoon-fed to the media.
Finally, consider this hypocrisy: Dermatology professionals still continue to use indoor tanning equipment in dermatology offices to treat psoriasis and other purely cosmetic disorders; a treatment called “phototherapy.” If what was widely reported by the IARC was true, then the dermatology profession would be guilty of that which they accuse indoor tanning facilities: increasing women’s risk of melanoma in exchange for treating a non-lethal disease, which would violate the “never do harm” provision of a physician’s Hippocratic Oath.
Saying that UV exposure is harmful and should be avoided is as wrong as saying that water causes drowning, and therefore we should avoid water.
My indoor tanning business provides a valuable service in this community: teaching people the concepts of moderation and sunburn prevention as part of a practical life-long skin care regimen that respects their intelligence.
Cory Einhorn is the Area Manager of Beach Bum Tanning.
Comments
6 Responses to “Some Sunny Perspective”
Got something to say?
Cory Einhorn, you are hardly what I would call an unbiased source in this situation. As an esteemed tanning salon manager you probably know the following:
UV wavelength light is mutagenic to DNA. Any cells exposed to UV light run the risk of being mutated. Mutations in your DNA may sound awesome (a la X-men) but in reality mutations in the DNA of a cell are at the least, fatal to the cell. Cell death may sound like the worst possible outcome of mutation, but it is not; let me explain. Cell’s that are mutated and do not die are usually still capable of reproducing by mitosis (cell division). When this occurs a copy of the mutated DNA is passed from the original cell to the “new” cell. Sometimes, the mutations can disable apototic pathways in the cell, or cause the cell to uncontrollably reproduce. When these things happen you get a tumor (CANCER!). Even though the chances of all this happening may SEEM small, when you consider the fact that there are roughly 25 trillion cells in the body, the chances of this happening to just one cell is pretty good, and all it takes is one cell that has been mutated and divides without inhibition to form a cancerous mass.
In short, stop spreading your propaganda. UV radiation is not good for you in any more than the smallest doses (i.e. 10min of sun exposure, 3 times a week. Not 20 min of intense tanning bed UV rays, 365 days a year)
“Melanoma is more common in people who work indoors than in those who work outdoors.”
Melanoma is also more common in people who tan indoors than in those who tan outdoors, if you know what I mean
http://www.aad.org/media/background/factsheets/fact_indoortanning.html
There’s the truth.
Concerned about my health and the health of those in my family, I have researched this topic on an independent basis for the past five years and am appalled at the total lack of quality information being spread. So I must point out:
- M’s response above is a dangerous oversimplification. To say that UV light damages DNA is akin to saying that exercise damages muscle tissue - which it does. It is a micro-definition of a macro-phenomenon. And when you consider that 77 percent of Americans are now vitamin D deficient because we do not get enough UV light, M’s explanation transcends just being misleading — it’s just downright dangerous.
- MikeB’s point is also incorrect. Melanoma only shows a relationship with UV light if you include UV’s affect on people with Irish, Scottish skin — skin we call Skin Type I. These people are genetically predisposed to this disease and if you remove those subjects from any of the studies on UV and melanoma, there is no longer any link. That is a HUGE confounding variable that the dermatology profession has failed to acknowledge.
- Mike B’s second post shows the position of the American Academy of Dermatology on tanning. Dermatology is doubling down on its failed advice — telling people to avoid the sun at all costs — at the expense of public health. They are completely responsible for massive vitamin D deficiency in our society today.
I have never tanned at a Beach Bums salon, but I have tanned in tanning salons before. As long as the staff is properly trained in teaching moderation and sunburn prevention, I think that the service they provide is valid and that the criticisms levied against tanning are oversimplified by Dermatology and others who are shamelessly trying to cover their tracks and justify their big mistake: Causing epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency by telling the public to avoid the sun.
Jennifer:
I’m sure all of the research that you have done on tanning has been collected from peer reviewed, reputable scientific journals. If this isn’t the case, perhaps you should go ahead and start looking there. I’ll assume you haven’t. In addition to stating an argument backed up by no reputable facts, you are trying to smokescreen your hole filled argument by throwing the vitamin D deficiency fact around like a frisbee. I am personally acquainted with a dermatologist who says that 10-15 minutes of sun exposure daily is more than enough to stimulate vitamin D production, so tanning is not at all necessary.
The first post is definitely an oversimplification, do you think the average person would understand the complicated molecular genetic processes involved in DNA mutation? As a biology major I am quite aware of the effects that UV radiation can have on DNA: we use it to mutate the DNA of organims in our genetics labs on a regular basis. Additionally, likening DNA damage to muscle damage is an extremely horrible logical fallacy. Muscle damage does not alter the genetic code of your cells. DNA damage (mutation) is how cancer starts. End of story. The point here is that UV radiation is mutagenic and mutations can lead to cancer.
My point isn’t that tanning in beds is evil. My point is that telling people tanning in beds is harmless is evil. That is what Cory Einhorn, and now you, are trying to do. Jennifer, if you are so concerned with public health perhaps you should stop pushing the “tanning beds aren’t harmful, they make you healthy and beautiful” agenda and start peddling the facts. Tanning beds are potentially harmful and increase your risk of developing cancer and the public deserves to be informed of the risks of UV bed tanning, instead of being lulled into a complacency by the set of lies that Mr. Einhorn is peddling.
The objective of my article was to open the eyes of the general public who were unnecessarily shocked by media claims that were taken out of context from an article released by the IARC that actually didn’t even release any new information regarding the subject matter. It was simply slanted in such a way that because it’s ‘in the news” the public blindly perceives it as the truth rather than actually taking the time to look at legitimate research.
It’s kind of funny how lotion companies, moreover those that sell sunscreens are in fact behind some of the funding that goes into releasing such slanted points of view….hmm…possibly to sell more sunscreen?
I’m simply asking the public to look at the facts regarding human nature and a tan being your body’s natural resistance to a sunburn.
Again I ask that folks take the time to actually look into some of the facts regarding the subject matter rather than blidly comdemning something based on something you “saw on TV”.
Interested in some actual information:
Abstract on a NEW study in the British Journal of Dermatology last month:
Melanoma epidemic: a midsummer night’s dream?
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122453431/abstract
“We therefore conclude that the large increase in reported incidence is likely to be due to diagnostic drift which classifies benign lesions as stage 1 melanoma. This conclusion could be confirmed by direct histological comparison of contemporary and past histological samples. The distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by solar exposure. These findings should lead to a reconsideration of the treatment of ‘early’ lesions, a search for better diagnostic methods to distinguish them from truly malignant melanomas, re-evaluation of the role of ultraviolet radiation and recommendations for protection from it, as well as the need for a new direction in the search for the cause of melanoma.”
From PubMed:
Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15687362?dopt=AbstractPlus
“CONCLUSIONS: Sun exposure is associated with increased survival from melanoma.”
Times Online:
Sun warnings ‘overstated’ as science finds new clue to skin cancer
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6690007.ece
“Sunshine is not the main cause of the most dangerous form of skin cancer, according to researchers, who say some warnings about the perils of sunbathing are scaring people unnecessarily.
Scientists, whose research appears in the current issue of the journal Nature Genetics, claim the number of moles on your skin is the most important factor in the risk of getting melanoma. This reignites the debate over whether official health warnings about avoiding the sun are overstated.”